Comments on: Raising Arizonahttp://climateaudit.org/2007/07/31/adjusting-in-arizona/
by Steve McIntyreSun, 02 Aug 2015 19:00:38 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.com/By: Does Hansen’s Error “Matter”? « Climate Audithttp://climateaudit.org/2007/07/31/adjusting-in-arizona/#comment-252462
Mon, 17 Jan 2011 12:37:11 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1838#comment-252462[…] less affected by urban problems. This comparison demonstrated a very odd pattern discussed here. The adjustments show that the trend in the problematic Tucson site was reduced in the course of […]
]]>By: Steve McIntyrehttp://climateaudit.org/2007/07/31/adjusting-in-arizona/#comment-96909
Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:38:22 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1838#comment-96909I’m going to delete any posts that do not relate to station adjustments. The continuum hypothesis is specifically proscribed on this thread.
]]>By: Thucydideshttp://climateaudit.org/2007/07/31/adjusting-in-arizona/#comment-96908
Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:23:47 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1838#comment-96908Oh, Paul Cohen, not Paul Cantor. You get the drift.
]]>By: Thucydideshttp://climateaudit.org/2007/07/31/adjusting-in-arizona/#comment-96907
Thu, 02 Aug 2007 00:17:20 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1838#comment-96907As I remember it, the Continuum Hypothesis is the hyphothesis that Aleph-1, the next cardinality after Aleph-0, the cardinality of the natural numbers, is equal 2^Aleph-0, the cardinality of the real numbers, or the cardinality of the continuum. Alternatively, that there are no sets with cardinality greater than Aleph-0 and less than 2^Aleph-0. Paul Cantor showed, using his forcing proof-technique, that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axiomation of Set Theory (ZF). In other words, there are models of ZF in which the Continuum Hypothesis is true, and there are models in which the Continuum Hypothesis is false. Since ZF is generally used in modern mathematics, we can say that the Continuum Hypothesis is independent in standard mathematics. Don’t confuse the Continuum Hypothesis with the Axiom of Choice. The Axiom of Choice, which says that for a set of sets there exists a choice function selecting one element from each set, is an axiom of ZF. The Axiom of Choice is widely assumed in mathematics, although it is rejected in constructive interpretations of mathematics.
]]>By: Sam Urbintohttp://climateaudit.org/2007/07/31/adjusting-in-arizona/#comment-96906
Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:26:27 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1838#comment-96906There’s problems with the margins with this theme. I liked the semi-fixed one better.

Oh, well, that’s why there’s notepad.

]]>By: bigcitylibhttp://climateaudit.org/2007/07/31/adjusting-in-arizona/#comment-96905
Wed, 01 Aug 2007 23:10:47 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1838#comment-96905John A(#61), that is not a correct account of the continuum hypothesis. Its truth value, and if it has one, is
still up for grabs. I found the particular ref I was looking for. Its from the archives of the FOM list, from about 3 years ago, when someone asked:

“Is there any general consensus amongst the mathematical/FOM community
regarding the truth or falsity of CH?”

…and a fairly long-winded discussion was initiated, with no consensus being reached.

Also, the problems with this particular contention of Popper’s (in #60)–that we can approach but never
achieve truth–were pointed out years ago (I think by Munz). For example, how can we know we are approaching truth if we can never know where truth is, just like: how can I know if I am closer or farther away from London if I can never, in principle, say I’ve reached London? Popperians have worked to resolve this issue, but when you reach the second generation types like Lakatos,alot of the old claims (like this one) aren’t really relevant anymore.

And, David Blair, I did my masters on all these guys. Its probably the one area I have ANY claim to authority in. Believe me, none of what they’ve written should give any comfort to Deniers.

PS. Steve, why is your comments box so crap? I can’t see what I’m writing off to the right of the page.

]]>By: John Ahttp://climateaudit.org/2007/07/31/adjusting-in-arizona/#comment-96901
Wed, 01 Aug 2007 20:27:09 +0000http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1838#comment-96901Oh BCL, by the way, the Continuum Hypothesis is undecideable – it is therefore true, but cannot be proven to be true. That again is not a consensus statement – it is a mathematical statement.
]]>